Tips for Writers

February 21, 2015

Let's talk about the hugest of the huge best-sellers of recent years and what they have in common. Above are the three ubiquitous books that the world has embraced--selling zillions of copies, spawning films, receiving thousands of reader reviews on Amazon and Goodreads...

All are mystery/thrillers, of course. But what I find most interesting is the fact that all have the word GIRL in their title.

Now, there was a time not too long ago that I wouldn't have dared call any woman a "girl." Having a wife and two daughters, and sharing their experiences, I came to understand why it wasn't acceptable to say "the girls in the office." But recently I've noticed that even my wife has begun to talk about "the gals" and one of my daughters talks about her "girls' night out."

I'm not up on the latest feminist theory, but there is something going on here. I understand that a recent wave of feminists holds that women should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to maximize their success and power--and that sex and sexuality are two of those tools. Still, there's a difference between referring to someone as a "woman" and referring to that same person as a "girl."

I admit I'm curious as to how these titles came to be, about the conversations that were had. Let's take them in order, adjusting the wording a bit.

THE WOMAN WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO--As many people know, the original title of this book in Swedish was "Men Who Hate Women." And that is indeed a key theme of the book. Did we think our slick/schlocky society here in the States wouldn't embrace a book with such a title? I know I wouldn't publish a book with such a title. Here, though, I can see why "girl" works, in that Lisbeth Salander is a young woman, just beyond girlhood, who is the victim of a paternalistic society. Despite her bravado, she's vulnerable--a sort of girl-woman. So, I think using the word "girl" in the title works and fits the book's themes. But I wonder how Lisbeth herself would feel about being called a girl. Something tells me she'd be OK with it--she's more of a raw-emotion kind of person, not a quibble-over-semantics kind of person. I wouldn't be surprised if she reads the "Grrl Power" anime comics that are popular the world over.

GONE WOMAN--Now, there's a title that doesn't work at all. The alliterative "Gone Girl" is so much better. Amy Dunne, our unreliable narrator, isn't a girl. She's a young woman. But she engages in the sort of dramatic antics that we (or should I say, I) associate with teenage girls. She's a dangerous mix of maturity and immaturity (as is her husband, and this dynamic is what sustains the entire book). Amy positions herself as a victim, sort of infantilizing herself (portraying herself as a sweet, loving, happy-go-lucky, innocent person) to manipulate the media, society, and the police. When Amy disappears, it's as if a "girl" has gone missing, not a "woman." But I think this observation only strengthens my point that society perceives a girl as an innocent,and a woman as a person with agency. The clever trick here is that a rather vicious woman manages to present herself a "girl."

THE WOMAN ON THE TRAIN--OK, that title works for me, but "The Girl on the Train" is better. Here's another case where the person of the title, Rachel Watson, is clearly not a girl. She's a grown woman who's a complete and total disaster. She sees herself as "the girl on the train"--it's a way of bringing her back to a more innocent time, when she was younger and happier. The fact that this mess of alcoholic can see herself as a "girl" does create pathos; if she saw herself as a woman, she'd have to take more control of her life rather than play the victim as an excuse to keep drinking. So, again, I think "girl" was the right choice here.

So, can we say that underneath these best-sellers we see a running theme of women's identity, self-presentation, emotional well-being, and place in society? Perhaps, perhaps.

I loved DRAGON TATTOO, quite liked GONE GIRL, and truthfully found GIRL ON THE TRAIN overrated. Everyone in the publishing industry knows that every agent and publisher in the United States has been looking for "the next GONE GIRL," so kudos to Riverhead for finding it (or making it happen) with GIRL ON THE TRAIN. Something tells me that was a savvy bit of marketing on the author's/agent's part and the publisher's part. GIRL ON THE TRAIN suffers from being too long, too predictable, and really not doing anything different from what's been done before--unlike DRAGON TATTOO and GONE GIRL, which I think did a nice job of breaking new ground. But I'm all for any book that keeps people reading and talking.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention an earlier series that has long been a favorite of mine: the GIRL series by Charles Mathes. This is a series in that all the titles feature the word "girl," but the heroine is different in each book. The first, The Girl with the Phony Name, is pictured at left. The other three are The Girl Who Remembered Snow, The Girl at the End of the Line, and The Girl in the Face of the Clock. Mathes' heroines are unlike the dark heroines of the books mentioned above; in fact, they're the polar opposite: upbeat, pleasant, a bit in over their heads but really trying not do anything stupid. They're all girls in that they are rather innocent naifs when the book opens; by the end of their adventures, they've grown but still remain the delightful women we've come to love. Books like this aren't being published any longer, as far as I can tell, and that's a shame. But do look for them if you like a highly entertaining, pleasant read, often with a light Gothic feel, and do start with The Girl with the Phony Name, one of my all-time favorites.

April 10, 2014

Is it just me, or am I the only one whose nose is getting put out of joint by writers who act ungraciously in their acknowledgments, forewords, and/or afterwords?

My wife called to my attention the "Author's Note" at the beginning of a book by a best-selling thriller writer. Writer declares that he made certain things up and took some liberties with geography, "so please don't send me letters telling me that I'm wrong about all of this."

The Website of a best-selling writer (who, honestly, I don't think is that good) offers you a Web form in which to type your comments but basically tells you not to expect a response, because he is a Very Busy Man.

Here's a quote from an afterword whose tone I found a bit offputting: "The action is set in 2008 and is consistent with the calendar, although not necessarily the weather. But, mainly, I sat in front of my computer and made stuff up. That's what novelists do."

Another disheartening moment: Writer of a sequel to a hugely best-selling book writes an afterword in which he bad-mouths the now-classic film version of the first book, seeming resentful that more people remember the movie's ending, which differs from the book's ending. (By the way, the movie ending is better.)

Then there's a favorite writer of mine -- not someone I publish, just someone whose work I love -- who complains in the last book of the series that he has grudgingly agreed to write a few more books, but then that will be it, because he needs to move on.

My friends, I'd like to put all of you into a very large cocktail shaker and shake some sense into your ungrateful little heads. OK, most of you are quite talented, and all of you at least know how to tell a story. But don't you think you mess with your karma just a little bit when you say things like this? You complain that readers write to you ... when there are thousands of struggling writers out there who would kill to have that "problem"? You complain that you want to stop writing about a beloved serial character ... and admit that you're only going to write a few more books as a sop to fans (and probably for the money)? You're a multi-millionaire not only because of your books but also because you've sold very lucrative film rights ... and you bad-mouth a movie that's considered a classic, by a highly respected director? You win all kinds of awards and have an enviable book-a-year deal ... and you close by condescending to your readers, telling them "that's what novelists do" (as if they didn't know that already)?

Please, writers: Create your characters. Tell your stories. Thrill us and surprise us. But don't make us think you're spoiled brats who don't appreciate what you have. In other words, please think long and hard about what you put in those long-winded acknowledgments and prefaces.

May 21, 2013

Over the last few months, I have been dealing with a fair amount of "attitude" on the part of writers - mostly, but not exclusively, of the unpublished variety.

First, I expressed interest in a manuscript and emailed the writer with some questions. He answered snippily, telling me that I was to take his manuscript as is, as he wasn't willing to make any changes. Because the manuscript had potential but was average at best, I simply deleted his response. Then, while attending a conference, I encouraged a writer who had a terrific idea and asked her to send me the manuscript. (Note: This was a writer who does not have an agent, or who did not have one at the time we spoke.) Her response: "If I'm going to give it to a small publisher, I might as well publish it myself." Finally, I spoke with an author whose first book was a moderate success but whose work in progress is far below the standard set by the first book. Author's response to me: "Well, this is what I want to do."

Excuse me?

Listen, I feel your pain. I understand your frustration. This is an unpredictable - and often downright flaky industry. There are plenty of frauds out there who don't know what they're doing and who sell you a bundle of dreams while taking your money. But, to take the above experiences in order:

#1 - If you queried me about publishing your book, doesn't that mean you want to work with a professional editor and publisher?

#2 - If you don't have an agent, and a convention has paid for a reputable small press editor (i.e., me) to attend, don't you think you might want to at least explore the possibilities, in the EXTREMELY LIKELY case that you can't find an agent to take you on and you DON'T get signed by Knopf?

# 3 - If the advice I've offered has helped make your first book a success, why would my advice suddenly become useless as you're writing your next book?

What it all comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is the idea that vanity publishing/self-publishing is the path to all writer's goals. I've ridden this hobby horse before, and I know it's controversial, so I won't get into that - as I'm not going to change anybody's mind about it, and nobody is going to change mine.

But I'm trying to make a specific point here: EVERY WRITER NEEDS AN EDITOR. I know these blog posts at Mysterious Matters would be better if I had someone read and comment on them before I hit the "publish" key. And sometimes when I read earlier posts, I fixate on all the ways they could have been better, if I'd asked for some feedback from someone I respect.

All of the above scenarios have one truism at their core: "I, the writer, know best. I don't need professional guidance in terms of my career or manuscript. If nobody out there wants my piece of perfection, then I'll publish it myself and make all the money."

My friends, that is the approach of a narcissistic amateur. Your book isn't about YOU. It's about whether READERS want to buy it or not.

Every professional - including every professional writer - knows that he or she cannot do it alone. If your manuscript keeps getting rejected, it's for a reason that almost any of us who work in this industry could summarize in one sentence. Are you really going to grow in your craft by thinking that there's nothing anyone can teach you?

It's true, when I get query letters in which the writer tells me about his or her membership in a writer's group, I sometimes roll my eyes - because who's to say whether the people in the group have good taste or not? BUT: this signals to me that the writer wants to be commercially successful. S/he wants to understand how readers perceive the work and whether s/he is accomplishing her goals. In essence, the writer is saying: I want this to be the best it can be, and I can't do that alone.

And to those people I say: You are the successful novelists of tomorrow.

(Enraged readers may now commence to send me nasty emails about painting all vanity published authors with one brush; regale me with tales of 50 Shades of Gray and professional publishers not knowing their asses from a hole in the ground; etc.)

April 25, 2013

As I get through another couple of weeks' worth of submissions, I think: Someone needs to tell these writers what they are doing wrong as they seek commercial publication on the road to popular success. Here's a list of the mistakes you may be making: I've been seeing them a lot lately.

1. You can't describe your book in two provocative sentences. You have limited time to grab a reader's (editor's, agent's) attention. If I can't get excited about reading your book from your brief description of it, you're sunk.

Bad: The Feverel Inheritance is a story of family betrayal, revenge, and the country estate that people are willing to kill for.

Better: The Feverel Inheritance, a story of family betrayal and revenge, is told by identical twin narrators with very different personalities, each putting her own spin on the story.

Best: The Feveral Inheritance, set in the incestuous, material world of the Hamptons, features identical twin narrators engaging in a game of psychological warfare in their quest to grab hold of the family estate - and each other's husbands.

See what I mean?

2. You're not considering a national readership. Certainly there is a market for regional books: city-type books for urban women, for example. But most publishers are looking for books that can hit everywhere. I'm finding that a lot of manuscripts have a polarizing element to them that will limit acceptance. A good example: the demonization of city living or country living. I can't tell you how many times I see this phenomenon: Urban writer presents the city as the bastion of culture and diversity, while presenting the country or the suburbs as lifeless, dead places populated by idiots and inbred wackos. There are lots of readers in this country who don't live in cities, and they don't want to be insulted by a novelist. The same holds true in reverse: Country-based writers portray the country as a haven of fresh air and morals, while presenting the city as a filthy, immoral place. Again, do city readers really want to have their lifestyle choice insulted?

3. You're not balancing plot and character. I say it all the time: Genre fiction is the intersection of plot and character. These should be in 50-50 equilibrium, though I'd say you can get away with 60-40 on one side or the other. But if you're not telling a good story, and if you don't have at least a few likable characters, you've sunk your manuscript.

4. You haven't thought through readers' reactions to what your characters do and the choices they make. Readers can and do have visceral reactions to characters' actions and choices, and they can be really unforgiving. Suppose, for example, you have your male protagonist cheat on his wife early in the book. That is going to be a very, very hard thing for many people to get past. And yet I see this type of mistake all the time.

Another good example comes from one of the worst books I've ever read - a book I love to hate and gleefully place in my "Ten Worst Mysteries Ever Published" list. This particular book had a pregnant protagonist who constantly put herself in danger. As I read, I kept thinking, "Does this woman care not one ounce for unborn child?" Then I went to look up the reviews and saw this same reaction throughout the many, many 1-star reviews. Readers didn't see the protagonist as brave or intrepid - they saw her as hateful and self-absorbed. Not exactly a prescription for a best-seller.

November 10, 2012

In catching up on submissions, I'm noticing a few trends I thought I'd share. While I read all query letters with the hope that a jewel will be attached, I don't always read all the sample materials sent me. If the query letter is particularly well written, I'll usually give the manuscript a chance, even if the query has made it clear that the book isn't for me.

But there are plenty of books that aren't making the cut. Here's what isn't doing it for me, these days. In other words, things I'd suggest writers NOT write. Well, maybe WRITE, but not submit, because I think the chances of anyone buying it will be slim.

1. VAMPIRE STUFF. It's on its way out. By the time a manuscript goes through the agenting and submission process, it's going to be completely out.

3. PARANORMAL THRILLERS. This is the genre everyone loves to say No to. The reason is simple - We don't know how to edit it or where to sell it. I think the genre is going to end up flourishing in the ebook format; and, honestly, I think there is probably a niche for a forward-thinking publisher of print books to specialize in high-quality paranormal books. (The ones I've read haven't been too impressive from a writing point of view; but surely there are good writers in the genre.) I almost wish we could start an imprint, just to see how it does; but the challenges are so massive, and none of us really has that much passion for this type of book, and passion would be required to make it work.

4. "EROTIC" MYSTERIES. What a slew of these I've seen over the last six months. Fifty Shades of Grey notwithstanding, there's really no market (or at least not one that would be easy to reach; I imagine soft-core porn is pretty easy to find on the Web, though I'm afraid to go looking for it, for fear of having my computer destroyed by a virus).

QUICK TAKES:

Advice of the Week: I've read some quite poor published work lately. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I reject much better manuscripts than some of the published books I've read lately. What do all of these poor books have in common? They are agented. So, the advice I'm giving this week is - Do whatever you can to get an agent. Make the rounds, go to conventions, pay astronomical fees for pitch sessions - anything to get yourself out there. This business is small and unfair, so you might as well play by the rules and play the same game everyone else is playing. I've seen some manuscripts that I outright rejected end up with decent agencies and good publishers. Whether those manuscripts evolved into good books after I saw them is perhaps open to question; but the fact remains that there they are, published, and sitting on someone's shelf.

Submissions: I am currently open to submissions. Of course, I cannot tell you who I am, as that would ruin all the fun of doing this blog, and I'm not ready to give it up, quite yet. (I like the nice emails, as well as the snarky ones.) But let me say this: We are listed in LMP as a publisher that accepts unagented queries. So, if you have a good manuscript and are tired of bumping up against brick walls everywhere you turn, check out the LMP listings and try submitting to an independent press. Most serious writers understand the pros and cons of the big houses vs. the indies, so I won't list them here. But I can say that I'm proud of the work we do, and we're funded by some really wonderful people who want me to keep finding fabulous books by new writers. So, think about submitting to us.

UPDATE since original post: LMP is Literary Market Place. It has a high price tag, but you can likely find a copy at your local library, or can sort through the listings at a Barnes & Noble. Another place (online) to find publishers that are accepting submissions is Duotrope.

Random House and Penguin: The Random House/Penguin merger is of course the big news of the week. Wow. Two superb, superb publishers coming together... it's almost a little intimidating, and I can only imagine the in-fighting that is going to reign supreme over the coming months. I'll be watching this situation with interest.The conventional wisdom is that the two houses are merging in an attempt to gain some more market power. Now, this is not something that I generally approve of - I think as a society we've become much, much too lax about allowing these massive mergers. But I also think the average person on the street cannot even begin to understand the power that Amazon wields and how it affects everything we do, every single day. The RH/Penguin merger is an attempt, it seems to me, to re-balance the power between a predatory company that gets away with far too much and the people who actually publish books. I recently read a very perceptive article talking about the way Wall Street does not really expect Amazon to turn a profit; and that business model is truly frightening, because that will allow it to keep undercutting its competitors and driving them out of business with impunity. I'm glad to see some people fighting back; I just hope it works. Given what happened with the DOJ suit against "price fixing" of ebooks a while back, I'm not hopeful.

September 22, 2012

The editor/publisher's raison d'etre, at most publishing companies, is to bring revenue into the company. That may sound a little bloodless and corporate, but the way we generate revenue is by signing up promising new writers while also trying to make a buck on writers whose work has a proven history of selling. Bankrupt publishers don't do the world any good, and I've never apologized for being a businessman as well as an editor.

But things get a little tricky in the editor's head. On the one hand, we are looking for manuscripts that, in our opinion, will be purchased by a reading public with literally hundreds of thousands of other options. On the other hand, though, there's a part of us that sees ourselves as opinion leaders. This is where we get into that slippery phrase, "love a manuscript." The sentence "I didn't love this manuscript as much as I need to" usually means "This manuscript may or may not sell when published, but overall it wasn't to my taste, so I'm going to pass." This probably comes as no great epiphany to writers who've heard it time and time again from agents, editors, publishers.

Still, many of us make our decisions based on what we perceive as commercial acceptability. So, over the years, I have been compiling a list (in my head) of the things readers hate. If a manuscript does any of these things, it becomes less and less likely that it will be accepted for publication any a major house (or at an independent house that is market-centric). I've culled these ideas from reviews, from librarians, and even from some reader-response forums at conventions. In many of these cases, "what readers hate" is diametrically opposed to what I personally enjoy in a manuscript. This is where professional judgment has to take over; and usually Readers win.

1. An ambiguous ending. Lord, do readers hate an unresolved ending. Even when a new series is getting started, each book has to be a complete whole. Minor threads can be left unresolved (to be picked up in future books), but most readers can't stand being left at the edge of a cliff. They get even more frustrated when they feel that the author or publisher is sending them the message, "If you want to find out what happens, you'll have to buy the next book." (See point #5 below.)

What this means, ultimately, is that writers have to separate character from plot in series books. The immediate plot has to be resolved, while uber-arcs can continue from book to book. Most devoted readers of series read to follow the lives of the characters, not to be left hanging at the end of each installment.

2. An unhappy ending. Here's one way in which books and movies are similar. Readers hate an unhappy ending - where the protagonist dies, the guy doesn't get the girl, where one is left with a bleak feeling upon closing the book. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "The good end happily, the bad end unhappily. That is what fiction means." People who read to escape want a boost, not a downer, upon finishing a book.

I think in most books we know, just know, that the guy and the gal will end up together. What keeps us reading is the possibility that they might not pull it together, even as we know that, because we're reading popular fiction, they will.

3. Too much detail. I can't tell you how many times I've heard readers say, "I can't stand pages and pages of description. And all those historical details - endless details - I just skip over it." I think many readers perceive too much detail as self-indulgence on the writer's part. Are you listening, Jean Auel?

Earlier in my career, I had the great fortune of editing one of the great ladies of historical fiction. (Absolutely loved her, except she always fought me on breaking up huge chunks of narrative into chapters. Didn't matter, though - her public adored her.) What made her so successful, I think, was that she got the level of detail just right. The political element of the time; the way people lived in their daily lives; the architecture of the period - She drew it all with such economy that readers felt they were living it rather than being educated about it. Occasionally during a nostalgic moment I'll look up reviews of her on Amazon and elsewhere... she is still gaining new fans, and her work still resonates. She taught me early on about what makes fiction good and readable - and I have taken these lessons into other fiction genres.

4. Stupidity. Readers lose patience when books become too "unrealistic." The whole reality thing, and how far people will suspend disbelief, could be the subject of an entire book, so I won't get too deeply into the weeds on it here. But there's one area where readers simply can't stand too much reality, and that has to do with the intelligence of the main characters. Despite the fact that we're surrounded by stupidity in the real world, readers simply can't accept stupid main characters, or main characters acting in stupid ways. I think most editors are aware of this, which is why so few stupid characters make it into print for the first time. However, once a series is established, it seems that characters can get as stupid as they like.

Many moons ago I found a terrific manuscript. Its lead was a beautiful, hard-working - but alas, not very intelligent - woman. The way the story unfolded was based on other characters' taking advantage of her lack of intelligence. It was superbly done, but when I took it to the editorial board, I got shot down. Oh, how eloquent I was on my soapbox, arguing "But the writer made this character unintelligent intentionally - it's what drives the plot. It's not a case of writerly incompetence, having a character do something stupid because s/he's too lazy to think the plot through." The editorial director looked me straight in the eye and said "Agatho, Readers can't tell the difference." Lesson learned.

5. Financial Manipulation by Author or Publisher. The most horrific example of this phenomenon, in recent years, was James Patterson going on national TV to say, "If you don't read this book, I'll kill Alex Cross" (or words to that effect). My first reaction was - Go ahead and kill him; see if I care. I thought, "That's it - Patterson just killed his own career." Of course that hasn't happened (I'm not always right, sadly), but the backlash was pretty intense. (As most people know, Patterson built a career in public relations, so he knows more about consumer behavior than I do. I wouldn't even think about trying to manipulate my market that way, but he had no such qualms.) My daughter, God love her, is a big fan of the Twilight series, but she got really annoyed by the fact that Hollywood decided to make two films out of the last book in the series, just to milk some bucks out of the American public. This is why I think all those writers hawking their own work on DorothyL and other public forums probably experience an unseen backlash; folks have become pretty savvy about the way the Internet can be "gamed" (see recent NYT article about phony reviews) and have become skeptical/leery.

July 25, 2012

This week's completely obvious, often-repeated shibboleth: "The best writers are good editors." In other words, good writers know how to edit their own work.

This self-editing process is bifurcated, however. First, a novelist has to go back and look at the manuscript - and revise, and revise, and revise, before ever submitting. Second, a novelist has to be able to take an agent's and an editor's suggestions and do something with them.

I'm not sure that these skills can be taught, or easily summarized in a blog post. But there's one thing that I can emphasize, and it'll apply to almost everyone who submits their first manuscript to an agent or publisher:

CUT YOUR MANUSCRIPT BY AT LEAST 10,000 WORDS. OR MORE. MAKE IT SHORTER. THEN SHORTEN IT AGAIN.

The vast majority of manuscripts are too long. This isn't to say that they're necessarily "self-indulgent," though some of them are. Rather, length comes from being too focused on what you're doing as a writer and not concerned enough with the reader's experience. You may think, "Oh, I'm setting this up - I'm setting that up - I'm giving necessary background - I'm building character." If it causes the editor's eyes to glaze over, it needs to go. Not just in the early pages of the manuscript, but throughout the book.

A lot of writers are loath to give up a scene in which the description is particularly affecting, or characters engage in witty conversation, or the author philosophizes about a contemporary issue. But these passages will be ripe for the red pencil if it ever gets to the "I'm serious about possibly publishing this book" stage of the game. Why not increase your chances and get rid of all this extraneous "stuff" right from the beginning?

I know this industry beats up on people. Just when a writer's skin has been thickened a layer or two, out comes a cat o' nine tails to strip another few layers off. First, the pain of working the writing into your schedule. Then, the travails of a critique group in which people may or may not have any idea of what they're talking about. Then one-sentence dismissals from agents, or much-too-honest feedback from those agents who might be interested - IF you can fix things to their satisfaction. Then the pain of rejections when the agent submits - and THEN the editorial process at the publishing house, where the editor (if s/he's the type to pick up a pencil) starts excising favorite paragraphs, pages, or even chapters. And then the torture of sales and marketing... and the worry about whether you'll get a contract for your next book. It's like getting to the seventh circle of hell and then having to start all over again at the first circle.

So - why not avoid (or at least greatly lessen) all those slashing red marks by being proactive about it? You'll save yourself some emotional pain later in the process - and you're more likely to get people interested in your manuscript to begin with.

April 11, 2012

I haven't been blogging as much as I'd like to lately because it's been a good season for manuscripts. (I wonder if this has anything to do with NaNoWriMo.) As always, there are many submissions, few contracts. The submissions tell me that, despite all the dire prognostications, as well as the pomposities of the self/vanity-published, there are still a good many aspiring writers who understand that a publisher can do many things that the average person can't - and that the publisher will actually pay to have all of this done because it believes in their work! Imagine that - a world in which writers don't have to pay for editors, pay for typesetting, pay for ISBN numbers, pay for cover design, pay for publicists, etc. Oh, right: That's the world I've been working in for decades now.

But I digress. I'm seeing a common problem in recent submissions. It's not that this problem is NEW (in fact, it's always been a problem, for at least as long as I can remember), but since I've just set side about the 20th manuscript that has this problem, I thought I'd talk a little about it here.

In a nutshell: Writers, please make sure something HAPPENS in your first chapter. Not just anything, please, but SOMETHING INTERESTING, WEIRD, PUZZLING, ODD, or MYSTERIOUS. This spark of action is what readers need to get involved in your story. There's that old literary concept of in medias res - of starting a narrative in the middle of something, then going back and filling in details about the past as you move the story forward. It's as relevant to genre fiction as it is to Beowulf, and I can't stress that enough. A protagonist is not a baby just out of the womb: We should not hear the protagonist's life story, in sequence, starting X number of years ago, in the first chapter. We need STORY in the first chapter, with hints about what is to come and strange things about the characters that need explanation.

This is why I suggest the Action- Camera - Lights! approach to writing your first chapter.

ACTION - Have something happen. Your doorbell rings, you answer the door, and a stranger drops dead in front of you. You run to pick up the phone and as you're doing so, you hear someone smashing the back window of your house. You're running through Central Park at night, chased by God knows who, protecting that little package (with CONTENTS UNKNOWN TO THE READER) as if your life depends on it, because it probably does.

CAMERA - Make that first chapter visual. Picture it as the opening sequence of a film, or the trailer that makes you want to plunk down ten bucks to see the movie before it's released on DVD two weeks from now. I'm not saying to describe every last thing or person in detail, but make that opening chapter visceral. Something important has to be at stake, and you can "swing the camera" to other viewpoints (if you're doing a third-person narrative) to increase the mystery of what's going on.

Then, finally...

LIGHTS! - In your second chapter, or later, begin to illuminate what has happened in the first chapter. How did your protagonist get to where he or she is? Please note: I'm NOT saying that Chapter 2 is the place to then begin a longwinded backstory about your character's entire life history. I'm saying that in Chapter 2, you can let just a little bit of light onto your scene, dropping a couple of delicious tidbits or hints for your readier. The police have identified that man who dropped dead on your doorstep - It was your wife's lover, whose awareness you'd been blissfully unaware of. You find safety in a little-known hidewaway in Central Park and notice the feet of your attacker running past - he's wearing orange running shoes of the type favored by your boss. When you go to investigate the broken window at the back of your house, you find that your favorite pen has been stolen. But it was a Bic pen that you bought at Walmart for 29 cents. What gives?

You see my point... I don't want to read an autobiography or a biography. I want to read CRIME FICTION. So do the tens of thousands of other devoted mystery fans who are willing to try a new writer who does things right.

January 14, 2012

Most of the time, I blog about the editing and publishing of mysteries/crime fiction, rather than the writing thereof. But over the last few months I've been having conversations with writers from my list, and the talk has sometimes steered toward writing process, revision, audience considerations, and so forth. So, based on those discussions, I thought I might list what I see as writers' (or at least MY writers') top challenges as they write.

1. How do I balance plot and character? I find that many writers worry about finding this balance. Given length constraints, how do they tell a story while also giving characters room to grow and evolve? And I do think the balance is a tricky one to pull off. I often get manuscripts that are too character-centric, with only the sketchiest of plots; and I also get fast-paced books with paper-thin characters. If you're writing a series, having a strong protagonist (as well as a strong supporting cast) is essential. At the same time, you want to draw readers into your story. How do you accomplish all of this in 70-80,000 words? It's not easy.

2. How do I make the language do what I want it to do? All of my authors write in English. It's a nuanced and versatile language, but I hear a lot of writers say they feel they must wrestle it to the ground to make it do what they want it to do. It's not just a matter of word choice; language is essential in planting clues/hints/doubts. A lot of writers have been telling me they struggle as much with what they do not say as they do with what they do say. I think that's an important point: In mystery fiction, what you don't say is as important as what you do.

3. How do I find enjoyment as a writer while meeting my readers' expectations? We can all give examples of writers who are on auto-pilot, who've written the same book a dozen times. There's a place for that; formula can be comforting and enjoyable for readers. But a lot of my authors try to expand their horizons, and they find themselves asking the question: How do I write a book that people will want to read, but one that will be a challenge for me to write? As a writer, how do I hone my craft while not straying too far from the commercial realm of a book that the mass market will want to buy and read?

4. How do I develop a readership among all the competition? Interestingly, some authors worry about this question more than others. I have some authors who are masters of promotion, never missing a publicity opportunity. And I have others who just don't have it in them. That's not how they think or who they are. They're happy to do anything our publicist asks them to do (usually), but they're more introverted, less "out there." From where I sit, I'm not sure how much incessant self-promotion really impacts the bottom line. We have books with introverted authors that take off with a life of their own, and books by extroverted authors that sit in the warehouse. I wish I had the magic formula; my retirement fund would be a lot bigger.

5. How do I motivate myself to write, to stay in the game? A majority of writers (I'd go so far as to say a large majority) can't pay the bills by writing fiction. So there's the constant question of how much time they can spend on their writing, when they often have a full-time job, and/or a family, and/or other demands on their time. This isn't an endeavor for the weak or faint of heart; it takes time, tenacity, a thick skin, and a lot of patience - often without significant financial reward. When my authors miss deadlines because they have to work overtime at their day job (the one that pays the rent or mortgage), how mad can I really get? I can't pay them large advances, can't really give them the financial incentive to take six months to do nothing but write, revise, polish, and submit.